Huh. It would seem that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to micromanage commercial affairs on private property among the states in this manner.
If someone knows a restaurant or bar owner—ideally who own their land and are in a red state—who was fined or otherwise damaged by the feds for letting pets on their premises, please reach out. Would love to sponsor a test case.
You seeem pretty confused about what the US is(was?).
The CDC has a program that works with local departments in relation to local laws, maybe you can get things like this cancelled so Mexico and and Canada can finally share a border.
It’s directly incorporated into state and local law. I’m arguing that deserves a challenge. It de facto sidesteps state and local lawmakers, whom I’m not convinced have the power to delegate their lawmaking power this way.
> usually have a corporate employee write the law but a federal code that has been researched is the problem?
One, everyone running away with conspiracy theories is probably the singular problem in American politics today.
But two, I have no problem with the code in general. But I don’t like this section of it and now suspect it isn’t legally constructed. So yes, it’s a problem.
> If you think "I mostly follow the law except for this one rule I don't like" you didn't get it, you are just not a civilized person
You’re really calling the likes of Rosa Parks uncivilised [1]?
If the law is illegal or wrong, there is no higher calling than getting it overturned. There are two ways to do that in America: through the legislature and through the courts. To access the latter, you need a violation. (There is technically a third: not enforcing it. But that actually is a breakdown in the rule of law.)
But on the spirit of a good conversation (see @dang, I'm behaving :)) to your point of whether I have ever broke the law or not ... most likely yes, but not consciously.
Many times I have refrained from doing things for the sole reason that it would be unlawful, even though I disagree with it.
There's a big difference between that and choosing to consciously break the law for a menial pleasure.
Edit: So weird to be on the hot pan for defending the rule of law, lmao. What a terrible status quo.
I guess learning about every single law in every single situation would be this one thing that's "sure they're not easy and they take time" but:
Quoting from the swedish driver education book[1].
> It is not desirable to have 100% adherence to the rules. According to the criteria for a category B licence, you must display “good judgement when interacting with other road users”. A reasonable interpretation of this statement is that you may depart from the rules in some cases.
I feel the same can be said about many other situations.
Use a different restaurant? Are allergies a protected class for discrimination? If being in the same vicinity as a dog is too much, I guess taking a dog for a walk should be illegal too. And anything that produces pollen for that matter.
I’m also not aware of any pet-friendly bars or restaurants that have dogs regularly climbing on top of eating tables. I’m aware of a few which allow a dog on the floor somewhere
It’s not about empathy, it’s about stopping the spread of disease and parasites. This was a hard-fought battle we won decades ago, but apparently we’re re-litigating, no different than vaccines or pasteurization.
There was a hard won battle? there was most defintly not, but itcs worth a try, so lets start with exterminating rats, mice, cockroaches.
And then providing a minimum standard of care and funding for the millions of poor, unhealthy, disease carrying humans. And then worry too much about the dumb fucking cats, which as you might be able to discern, do not have my sympathy, but I am coward enough, not to mess with the legions of cat lovers......,..but did get down voted for the following
Rat?, Bat!, Splat!, how bout that.
Better cats in a place where you get food than mice and rats, which are the alternative.
[flagged]
> Pet friendly food places violate the law
Huh. It would seem that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to micromanage commercial affairs on private property among the states in this manner.
If someone knows a restaurant or bar owner—ideally who own their land and are in a red state—who was fined or otherwise damaged by the feds for letting pets on their premises, please reach out. Would love to sponsor a test case.
You seeem pretty confused about what the US is(was?).
The CDC has a program that works with local departments in relation to local laws, maybe you can get things like this cancelled so Mexico and and Canada can finally share a border.
https://www.cdc.gov/restaurant-food-safety/php/investigation...
> CDC has a program that works with local departments in relation to local laws
That’s not the problematic code [1].
[1] https://www.fda.gov/food/fda-food-code/summary-changes-2022-...
"The model Food Code is neither federal law nor federal regulation and is not preemptive."
It’s directly incorporated into state and local law. I’m arguing that deserves a challenge. It de facto sidesteps state and local lawmakers, whom I’m not convinced have the power to delegate their lawmaking power this way.
They usually have a corporate employee write the law but a federal code that has been researched is the problem?
> usually have a corporate employee write the law but a federal code that has been researched is the problem?
One, everyone running away with conspiracy theories is probably the singular problem in American politics today.
But two, I have no problem with the code in general. But I don’t like this section of it and now suspect it isn’t legally constructed. So yes, it’s a problem.
[flagged]
> If you think "I mostly follow the law except for this one rule I don't like" you didn't get it, you are just not a civilized person
You’re really calling the likes of Rosa Parks uncivilised [1]?
If the law is illegal or wrong, there is no higher calling than getting it overturned. There are two ways to do that in America: through the legislature and through the courts. To access the latter, you need a violation. (There is technically a third: not enforcing it. But that actually is a breakdown in the rule of law.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
One of the alternatives in the US, especially for issues regarding laws that infringe on rights, is to have a court adjudicate if the law is allowed.
You almost always need to break that law to get that to happen.
the law includes punishments because its expected and designed in that the law is broken.
there are wve past that, laws about how the law can be written, where they cant contreve more important laws like constitutions.
the most impactful way to challenge illegal laws is to not follow them, and the court process afterwards figures out invalidating that law
however, nreaking bad laws also brings attention to them so that legislative changes can be made.
So you never drove your car at 1mph over the speed limit?
I don't drive a car.
But on the spirit of a good conversation (see @dang, I'm behaving :)) to your point of whether I have ever broke the law or not ... most likely yes, but not consciously.
Many times I have refrained from doing things for the sole reason that it would be unlawful, even though I disagree with it.
There's a big difference between that and choosing to consciously break the law for a menial pleasure.
Edit: So weird to be on the hot pan for defending the rule of law, lmao. What a terrible status quo.
> weird to be on the hot pan for defending the rule of law
You’re confusing lawbreaking/lawlessness with the rule of law [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
I guess learning about every single law in every single situation would be this one thing that's "sure they're not easy and they take time" but:
Quoting from the swedish driver education book[1].
> It is not desirable to have 100% adherence to the rules. According to the criteria for a category B licence, you must display “good judgement when interacting with other road users”. A reasonable interpretation of this statement is that you may depart from the rules in some cases.
I feel the same can be said about many other situations.
- [1] https://korkortonline.se/en/theory/learning-maturity/
[flagged]
[flagged]
Use a different restaurant? Are allergies a protected class for discrimination? If being in the same vicinity as a dog is too much, I guess taking a dog for a walk should be illegal too. And anything that produces pollen for that matter.
I’m also not aware of any pet-friendly bars or restaurants that have dogs regularly climbing on top of eating tables. I’m aware of a few which allow a dog on the floor somewhere
It’s not about empathy, it’s about stopping the spread of disease and parasites. This was a hard-fought battle we won decades ago, but apparently we’re re-litigating, no different than vaccines or pasteurization.
There was a hard won battle? there was most defintly not, but itcs worth a try, so lets start with exterminating rats, mice, cockroaches. And then providing a minimum standard of care and funding for the millions of poor, unhealthy, disease carrying humans. And then worry too much about the dumb fucking cats, which as you might be able to discern, do not have my sympathy, but I am coward enough, not to mess with the legions of cat lovers......,..but did get down voted for the following Rat?, Bat!, Splat!, how bout that.
[flagged]
There’s medicine for that.